1.

 Building an architecture for

political influence: Atlas and the
transnational institutionalization of
the neoliberal think tank
Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic

INTRODUCTION

In a famous 1970 New York Times article, Milton Friedman argued for
the principled separation and strict division of labor between political
and economic spheres (Friedman 1970). Political elites should set and
monitor basic (and limited) rules of the game in independence. Meanwhile,
economic elites should be left to maximize utility within the bounds of
these rules. Such principled and strict separation, however, is difficult to
reconcile with empirical observation. Historically, politics and economic
affairs have always been connected one way or another (Goldthwaite 1987;
Mills 1956). The nature, the extent and the mechanisms of this interplay,
however, evolve through time and with changing contexts. In particular,
the dynamics of power and influence between economic and power elites
vary significantly (Martin and Swank 2012; Mills 1956; Pearson 1997). In
non-market and state-run economies, political elites tend to have the upper
hand. In market societies, the situation may be more complex.
In market societies, politics and politicians can still steer and orient the
conduct of economic affairs through the formalization and monitoring of
regulations and rules of the game. In parallel, however, economic actors
can deploy various strategies to influence politics and politicians. The
game then becomes a complex circular one where political actors may have
the capacity to impose rules and structures on economic actors but those
rules and structures might be strongly influenced, if not shaped ultimately,
by economic actors themselves. Globalization and corporate capitalism’s
progress across the world have made that circular interplay all the more
striking. Today, more than 50 of the largest hundred economic entities
in the world are corporations – the others are nation states. Those large

25

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 25 28/09/2017 11:44

 26 Power, policy and profit

transnational corporations are not only major economic players. Their size
and transnational reach also makes them powerful political actors (Bakan
2004; Perrow 1991).
Corporations are powerful political actors in different ways. First,
they have an intense direct impact on politics and politicians – and hence
rule-making and rule monitoring – through large-scale lobbying and/or
­political or campaign financing (Bebchuk and Jackson 2013; Borisov et
al. 2014; Igan et al. 2009; Smith 2000; Woll 2008). They have this kind
of impact at the local, national or even transnational – for example
European – level. Second, the exercise of corporate social ­responsibility
can be reinterpreted as one more expression of the political role and
impact of business (Scherer and Palazzo 2007). Corporations are making
consequential political ­ decisions as they compensate for ‘failed states’
(Chomsky 2006), act through delegation from disengaging states (Singer
2008) or become increasingly involved in transnational multi-stakeholder
rule making (Djelic 2011). Third, there is an even more subtle way in which
politics and the corporate world interact. Corporations are themselves
infused with certain ideologies and hence politics that frame and shape
their strategies, structures, processes and behaviors. These ideologies and
politics that infuse corporations also have a tendency to influence and
impact the world outside and beyond corporate boundaries. In particular,
they find their way to politicians and to the political sphere. Different
kinds of actors contribute actively to this infusion of particular political
programs both within corporations and in the political sphere – consulting
firms, lobby and advocacy groups, academics (from business schools and
economics departments mostly), as well as a dense ecology of think tanks
and research institutes.
Over the last 40 years or so, neoliberalism has become the ‘new
­dominant regime of truth’ (Burgin 2012; Mirowski and Plehwe 2009;
Djelic 2006; Foucault [1978] 2004; Harvey 2005) with a significant per-
formative impact, through time, on national policymaking (Campbell and
Pedersen 2001) and on dynamics of transnational governance (Lee and
McBride 2007). This powerful ideological program translates into concrete
politics with influence both in the corporate and political worlds. Of par-
ticular interest here is the carrier and boundary-spanning role of a dense
ecology of neoliberal think tanks and research institutes that has come to
be structured over the past four decades (Cockett 1995; Aligica and Evans
2009; Jackson 2012; Medvetz 2012). Neoliberal think tanks espouse a
market- and business-friendly ideology and have made it their mission to
champion, spread, defend and entrench, as widely and deeply as possible
and in a multiplicity of contexts, this ideology and its associated politics.
In this chapter, I am interested in the historical dynamics of emergence

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 26 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­27

of this dense ecology of neoliberal think tanks. Starting from the setting
up, in 1955, of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in Britain, I explore
the role of an organization, Atlas, that was created to replicate and diffuse
the success of the IEA and to ‘litter the world’ with free-market think tanks
(Blundell 2001). As I explore the founding of Atlas and its early years of
operation, I am particularly interested in the process through which the
organizational form of the ‘neoliberal think tank’ came to be constructed,
diffused and progressively institutionalized during that period. Through
this historical case study, I hope to contribute to our understanding of the
contemporary interplay between business and politics. I unpack potent –
albeit subtle and indirect – mechanisms of influence that have largely been
neglected in the literature. Neoliberal think tanks were constructed to
shape and spread ideological, political and practice templates and to help
crystallize and stabilize them across the world both in the corporate and in
the political world. The key, as Hayek argued in 1949, was ‘to shape public
opinion’ and orient it towards a belief in the superiority of market solu-
tions and economic logics (Hayek 1949, p. 417). Politics and policymaking
would then necessarily have to adapt, under pressure from an evolving and
mobilized public opinion – and this would occur across a great diversity of
institutional and cultural contexts.

METHODS AND DATA

This article builds upon an in-depth historical case study (Skocpol

1984). Historical case studies belong to the category of ‘process research’
(Langley 1999). They are particularly well suited to exploring processual
sequences and bundles of causal patterns that lead up to an important
­situation (Skocpol 1984; Van de Ven and Sminia 2012). The ‘situation’ I am
interested in is the contemporary existence of a dense ecology of neoliberal
think tanks with ideological and political impact. And my focus is on the
historical dynamics and causal sequences leading up to that ‘situation’. As
space is constrained, I focus my account on the early steps and sequences
creating the conditions for such a ‘situation’ to emerge. I follow, hence, the
early years of one particular organization, Atlas, from the context of its
emergence to the role it played, during its first years of operation, in the
diffusion and institutionalization across different parts of the world of a
new organizational form – the neoliberal think tank. The period that is
explored goes from 1955 and the creation by Antony Fisher of the first
neoliberal think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London,
through the creation of Atlas in 1981 and until Fisher’s death in 1988.
The data presented reflect the classic combination, in historical case

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 27 28/09/2017 11:44

 28 Power, policy and profit

studies, of primary and secondary data. Primary data sources are ‘forms
of evidence produced during the historical period under investigation’
(Witkowski and Jones 2006, p.72). Unfortunately, access to Atlas’ full
archives has been impossible. However, a wealth of primary documents
is available from the website of Atlas as well as from a number of other
sources. A number of personal archives (those of Margaret Thatcher and
Friedrich Hayek in particular) as well as the websites and archives of a
number of organizations connected to Atlas – some of which are available
online – are all useful sources of information on the setting up and early
development of Atlas. The reference section provides an exhaustive list
of the websites and archives that have been consulted and exploited for
the generation of this historical case study. As a complement, I have also
used the documents that make up a ‘history from within’ the neoliberal
­constellation – books, memoirs and biographies. As much as possible,
I have triangulated the information in those documents with available
primary sources. I have also consulted and used existing secondary contri-
butions by historians and social scientists. There is a broad secondary lit-
erature by now on the historical development of the neoliberal movement
in general, a rapidly increasing production on the topic of neoliberal think
tanks but nothing as yet on Atlas and its particular role in the neoliberal
constellation.

CONTEXTUALIZATION – BUILDING THE

INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

In 1955, Sir Antony Fisher, a World War II British Air Force veteran
turned chicken farmer, set up the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in
London. In the following years, Fisher himself constructed and spread the
‘creation myth’. After reading a Reader’s Digest version of Hayek’s book,
The Road to Serfdom, Fisher went to the London School of Economics in
1946 to meet Hayek in person and propose his services to the cause of free
markets (Muller 1996). When Fisher suggested he could go into politics,
Hayek countered with an alternative proposition:

Society’s course will be changed only by a change in ideas. First you must reach
the intellectuals, the teachers and writers with reasoned argument. It will be
their influence on society, which will prevail and the politicians will follow. (As
quoted in Blundell 2003, p. 17)

The seed for the IEA and the first neoliberal think tank had thus been
planted. Fisher brought it alive in 1955, after he had accumulated suffi-
cient financial resources through his entrepreneurial success with the mass

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 28 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­29

production of chicken. To run the IEA, Fisher recruited Ralph Harris,

a young intellectual from the Conservative Party (Blundell 2003, p. 17).
Harris then convinced Arthur Seldon – a bright liberal economist – to
join as editorial director. The IEA engaged in intense intellectual activism,
producing and diffusing ‘papers and pamphlets for an educated audience’
(Blundell 2003, p. 21; Seldon 2005). It also relayed the work of Hayek
and other prominent members of the still young Mont Pèlerin Society
(Mirowski and Plehwe 2009). Initially, the period and the country were not
conducive to free-market ideas – quite to the contrary:

We were a scorned, dismissed, heretical minority. There was a preordained

path for the state to regulate, to plan and to direct – as in war, so in peace. If
you questioned it, it was like swearing in church. At times this overwhelming
consensus intimidated us, and we sometimes held back. We often felt like mis-
chievous, naughty little boys. (Blundell 2003, p. 20)

By the beginning of the 1960s, though, the IEA had found a space and
an audience in the intellectual ecology of Britain. Around the IEA and
its numerous press and social events – where academics and other con-
tributors presented and discussed papers with policy implications – the
network of free-market supporters and champions became denser through
time (Muller 1996; Seldon 2005). It brought together a great diversity of
people from academia, the media, the professional world and business.
By the mid-1970s, the Institute of Economic Affairs was in the process of
­asserting its intellectual influence in Britain. With the IEA, Fisher, Harris
and Seldon had successfully institutionalized the prototype of a new kind
of organization – the neoliberal think tank. This organization had four
characteristic features. First, its mission was ‘to conduct a war of ideas’
and to champion ‘market philosophy’ (Muller 1996). Second, it would
do so by attempting to influence those people Hayek called ‘second hand
dealers in ideas’ (Hayek 1949) – the ‘academic scribblers and intellectuals
who shaped, promulgated and even advertised ideas, journalists, broad-
casters, teachers, students and political commentators’ (Muller 1996 p. 90).
Third, the organization refused allegiance to any political party and vowed
not to receive any public or government funds to keep its ‘­independence’.
Funding initially came from private individuals, and in particular from
Fisher. Later on, private firms became important ­contributors (Muller
1996). Fourth, the IEA rapidly managed to co-opt ­academics into its
activities and hence progressively developed academic and scientific rigor
and legitimacy. All those features were striking and quite specific to the
IEA then. They would soon become the defining markers of the neoliberal
think tank as a new organizational form.

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 29 28/09/2017 11:44

 30 Power, policy and profit

The concrete influence of the IEA was confirmed in May 1979, when
the Conservative Party won the British parliamentary elections by a wide
margin and Margaret Thatcher became prime minister (Muller 1996,
101ff). On 18 May, she sent a warm thank you note to Ralph Harris (and
to the IEA as a whole):

Let me thank you for what you have done for the cause of free enterprise over
the course of so many years. It was primarily your foundation work, which
enabled us to rebuild the philosophy upon which our Party succeeded in the
past. The debt we owe to you is immense and I am very grateful. (Thatcher
1979)

In June 1979, Margaret Thatcher made Ralph Harris her first peer, raising
him as Lord Harris of High Cross (Blundell 2008, p. 190). Harris liked
to say that ‘he was not a Thatcherite’ but that Britain was lucky that
‘Margaret Thatcher was an IEA-ite’ (Wolf 2006).

DIFFUSING AND INSTITUTIONALIZING THE

NEOLIBERAL THINK TANK

In the 1970s already, Fisher had in mind the idea of replicating the success
of the IEA through the multiplication of parallel initiatives. As he made
clear in 1977:

To those who ask for a concentrated effort I plead with all the power at my
command for proliferation. We are getting near the truth; let it be propounded
from as many sources as possible. (Frost and Moller 2008, p. 20)

In 1975, a Canadian businessman, Patrick Boyle, asked Fisher to come

and help him set up what would become the Fraser Institute. Things, then,
started to accelerate. Fisher was being contacted, from different parts of
North America, to help with the launch of organizational ‘brothers’ and
‘sisters’ to the IEA; the Manhattan Institute in 1978 in New York, the
Heritage Foundation in Washington or the Pacific Research Institute in
San Francisco, where he and his wife moved in 1979.

Building upon Early Success – Towards the Creation of Atlas

After the political victory of Thatcher in 1979, Antony Fisher was more
eager than ever to foster the proliferation of neoliberal think tanks
beyond the shores of Britain, Canada or the United States. He tested,
with a few persons, his idea of an organization that would be in charge of

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 30 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­31

proliferation. On 1 January 1980, Hayek wrote back, giving him his full
support:

I entirely agree with you that the time has come when it has become ­desirable
and almost a duty to extend the network of institutes of the kind of the London
Institute of Economic Affairs . . . I am more convinced than ever that the
method practiced by the IEA is the only one, which promises any results . . .
This ought to be used to create similar institutes all over the world and you have
now acquired the special skill of doing it. (Hayek 1980)

The new organization Fisher had in mind would fulfill the mission of
helping to set up neoliberal think tanks across the world. The Institute for
Economic Affairs would serve as the prototype for the think tanks them-
selves and Fisher planned to build upon his recent experience as ‘think
tank entrepreneur’ in Canada and in the United States. On 20 February
1980, he received another warm endorsement for that project, this time
from Margaret Thatcher:

I applaud your aim to build on the success of the IEA in Europe, America and
further afield. I believe it deserves the most urgent and generous support of all
concerned with the restoration of the market economy as the foundation of a
free society. (Thatcher 1980)

After winning the Nobel Prize in 1976, Milton Friedman had retired from
the University of Chicago and settled in San Francisco. There, he was a
visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and fellow at
the Hoover Institution in Stanford (Taylor 2000). The Friedmans lived in
the same apartment block as Antony Fisher and his wife (Friedman 2002).
So, not only did Milton Friedman endorse Fisher’s idea right away; he was
also closely associated with the early development of the project.
The Atlas Economic Research Foundation (Atlas) was incorporated in
the State of Delaware on 14 July 1981. The offices of Atlas were initially
located in San Francisco, in the Mills Building at 220 Montgomery Street.
In the summer of 1988, just after Antony Fisher died, Atlas moved its
offices to George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia – a few miles from
Capitol Hill and the Washington power center. John Blundell then became
the new president and stayed in that position until 1991 when he moved to
the Institute of Economic Affairs (Frost and Moller 2008, p. 38).
The name Atlas has two possible origins. It can obviously refer to the
Greek Titan who held up the world on his shoulder. In Greek mythology,
though, Atlas is strong but not very smart, easily deceived by Ulysses.
Archimedes, the Greek astronomer, proposed a rational reinterpretation of
the Atlas myth that was, apparently, the source of inspiration for Antony

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 31 28/09/2017 11:44

 32 Power, policy and profit

Fisher (Frost and Moller 2008, p. 27). Archimedes purportedly said: ‘Give
me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I will move the world.’
The lever, in our story, was the Institute for Economic Affairs prototype to
be diffused across the world. In the neoliberal thought collective, however,
Atlas is also easily associated with the work of Ayn Rand, in particular
her best-selling book Atlas Shrugged. The official position of the Atlas
Economic Research Foundation on the origin of its name is relatively
non-committal:

The name was not derived from the book, in fact the word ‘Atlas’ in our name
has to do with the global nature of our work. And although we share many of
the free market values found in Atlas Shrugged and held by the Atlas Society
and Ayn Rand Institute, we are quite separate organizations. (Atlas 2013b)

Atlas’ beginnings were small. Pamela Lentz joined Atlas as full-time

­secretary/office manager on 1 January 1982. In 1985, Alejandro Chafuen,
a young Argentinian with a PhD in economics from California (and a
member of the Mont Pèlerin Society since 1980), joined the team (Chafuen
2011). Chafuen was president of Atlas from 1991 to 2009 and he remains
a member of the board.
In the early period, Antony Fisher did most of the work with the support
of his wife, Dorian (Chafuen 2011). The budget of Atlas, for the first year,
was around $150,000 (Chafuen 2011). Donors included a Canadian family
that to this day desires to remain anonymous. The Sarah (Mellon) Scaife
Foundation donated 30 percent of the initial budget and is still a major
donor. The Scaife Foundation is a Pittsburg-based family foundation that
gives large sums of money to many members of the neoliberal thought
collective, and is arguably the ‘leading financial supporter of the move-
ment that reshaped American politics in the last quarter of the twentieth
century’ (Kaiser 1999, p. A1). Charles Brunie, Dorian Fisher (Antony’s
rich wife) and a number of private philanthropists from the United States
and Canada were also among the early donors (Chafuen 2011).

Fostering Proliferation – Atlas and the Early Diffusion of Neoliberal Think

Tanks

The main mission of Atlas, initially, was to expand the reach of the
­neoliberal agenda by fostering the rapid proliferation of think tanks on
the model of the London IEA in different regions of the world. The idea
was that those think tanks, just like the IEA had done in Britain, would
­‘influence public sentiment’ across the world and that this would in turn
‘make legislation possible’ (Fisher 1985). During its early period, Atlas
fostered the proliferation of think tanks in essentially two ways. First, it

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 32 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­33

provided seed money. Even though amounts were small, this role of ‘think
tank angel’ proved extremely important as it would start the engine’, as it
were. As Antony Fisher was keenly aware:

One of the difficulties in setting up an institute is to raise the money in the first
place, because usually businessmen don’t know what it is all about. They need
to see the publications producing results by selling in universities and attracting
media coverage. Without the product, fundraising is always slow. (Fisher 1981)

Second, Fisher and the small team around him played the role of coach
and consultant. Building upon the experience accumulated throughout
the 1970s with the first generation of neoliberal think tanks, they identi-
fied success factors and different ways to deal with obstacles. Atlas was
not itself a think tank, nor did it ‘run(s) or control(s) any institute’ but it
‘used the IEA’s experience to advise an ever-growing family of independent
institutes’ (Atlas 1987).
The first investment ever of Atlas after 1981 was in a French institute –
the Institut Economique de Paris (IEP) (Fisher 1983). Pascal Salin, an
economist, and Guy Plunier, a businessman, were the local team behind
the IEP (Chafuen 2011). Even though this institute did not survive, Salin
has remained very active in the fight for a revival of liberalism in France
(Salin 2000). Fisher also put high hopes in John Goodman, a bright young
scholar with a PhD in economics from Columbia. Atlas gave Goodman
a starting grant of US$20,000. This allowed him to launch in 1983 the
National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas. The Center
would go on to become a highly influential think tank that worked exten-
sively to diffuse ‘new ideas’ in the United States, particularly when it comes
to the privatization and marketization of healthcare (NCPA 2013). In
South America, Fisher started by helping Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian
economist trained in Switzerland who went back to Peru in 1981 to found,
with the help of Atlas, the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD)
(Chafuen 2011). The influence of Fisher and Atlas on the Institute for
Liberty and Democracy was extremely significant, as de Soto later recalled:

It was on the basis of his (Fisher’s) vision that we designed the structure of the
ILD. He then came to Lima and told us how to structure the statutes, how to
plan our goals, how to build the foundation, what to expect in the short and
long term. (As quoted in Frost 2002)

Initially, the Institute for Liberty and Democracy fought for the institu-
tionalization of private property rights in Peru. In 1987, de Soto wrote a
book outlining a liberal agenda that would have a significant impact in
Peru and in other developing countries across the world. The title chosen

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 33 28/09/2017 11:44

 34 Power, policy and profit

for that book – The Other Path – was provocative in itself, as it clearly
referred to and confronted the powerful Shining Path Maoist movement,
which was at that time extremely active and powerful in Peru (Atlas 1991).
In Iceland, Fisher set his sights on Hannes Gissurarson. With a
small grant from Atlas, this young man launched the Jon Thorlaksson
Institute in 1983. In 1985, he defended his PhD thesis in political science
at Oxford University, with the title Hayek’s Conservative Liberalism. The
Jon Thorlaksson think tank was named after an Icelandic prime minister
from the 1920s who had been a fervent champion of economic freedom.
This think tank disappeared in 1988 but was in fact replaced by a new
­organization. The Icelandic Research Center for Innovation and Economic
Growth is the ‘direct heir to the Jon Thorlaksson Institute’ and is registered
with the tax authorities under the same identification number as the old
institute (RNH 2013). Gissurarson is still today the academic director of
that organization. In Australia, Fisher worked with Greg Lindsay in the
early 1980s, as the latter was busy creating the Center for Independent
Studies (Lindsay 1996). The Center for Research in Applied Economics
in Italy, launched by Antonio Martino, was another institute that Atlas
and Fisher helped create. Fisher also spearheaded or assisted projects in
Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, Australia and Spain (Neubauer 2012). He even
encouraged Eastern European researchers based in the United Kingdom
to start working on the question of communism, with a view to a pending
post-communist turn (Chafuen 2011).
By 1985, there were 26 organizational members in the constellation of
neoliberal ‘secondhand dealers of ideas’ associated with Atlas. Fisher and/
or Atlas were behind the creation or development of almost all of them
(Fisher 1985).

CONNECTING THE THINK TANKS TO THE

NEOLIBERAL THOUGHT COLLECTIVE

Beyond its role in fostering the diffusion of neoliberal think tanks across
the world, Atlas also had a significant impact during that period as a
­connector and mediating organization. It played a major role in ­facilitating
the inscription of the various think tanks into what could be called the
common neoliberal ‘thought collective’ (Mirowski and Plehwe 2009).
A first dimension of that inscription was the creation of a direct
­connection between the think tanks and their leaders and the intellectual
core of the neoliberal movement, the Mont Pélerin Society (MPS), which
Hayek had set up in 1947 (Djelic 2006; Mirowski and Plehwe 2009). A key
mechanism was the co-optation of leaders of the early think tanks into the

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 34 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­35

MPS. Among the 26 think tanks associated with Atlas in 1985, 20 had a
leader who was by that date already a member of the Mont Pèlerin Society.
In the following years, four more would be connected to the Mont Pèlerin
through membership of the leader. In general, the connection between
think tank leaders and the Mont Pélerin Society started either a few years
before or after the setting up of the think tank. This points to two probable
trajectories. Either, Antony Fisher scouted the individual in the context
of Mont Pèlerin Society meetings and identified him/her as a promising
future think tank leader. Alternatively, the think tank leader was brought
into the core organization of the neoliberal ‘thought collective’ precisely
because of his/her role in the building up of a successful think tank.
This proximity with the core meant that the think tanks were regularly
involved in the activities of the MPS. The Institute of Economic Affairs
helped organize the Oxford meeting of the MPS in 1959, and organized
two further meetings in Scotland in 1968 and 1976. The Fraser Institute
organized MPS regional meetings in Vancouver in 1983 and again in 1999.
In the context of MPS meetings, the members of this ‘thought collective’
were regularly exposed to an intellectual orthodoxy that became increas-
ingly controlled and powerful as conflicts and contradictions within the
MPS were progressively expunged (Djelic 2006; Mirowski and Plehwe
2009).
A second important dimension of the inscription in a neoliberal
‘thought collective’ was the embeddedness of the intellectual activity of the
various think tanks in a set of structuring references that were s­ urprisingly
homogeneous. Atlas helped diffuse the ideas of the core into the ­swelling
ranks of neoliberal second-hand dealers of ideas. Greg Lindsay, the
founder and leader of the Australian Center for Independent Studies made
that very clear:

The strategy mapped out by Hayek in The Intellectuals and Socialism was one
of working with people who transmit ideas to everyone else. I still think that
is right . . . We (the local institutes) are the retailers and wholesalers of ideas.
(Lindsay 1996, p. 20)

Atlas financed, in that early period, the translation in different languages

of some of the key texts of Hayek, Friedman and of the papers initially
produced by the Institute for Economic Affairs. It also facilitated the
reproduction and diffusion of materials produced by some of the older
neoliberal think tanks (Chafuen 2011). The texts written by Friedrich von
Hayek came close, in that context, to being a common ‘sacred reference’.
The Road to Serfdom (Hayek 1944) was not far from being the ‘Bible’ of the
neoliberal community, or, more precisely, the Reader’s Digest c­ ondensed
version of The Road to Serfdom (Frost 2002). Hayek also wrote many texts

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 35 28/09/2017 11:44

 36 Power, policy and profit

and pamphlets for the IEA that were later on broadly reprinted, translated
and circulated by Atlas. Between 1968 and 1983, Hayek wrote 13 such
texts; on inflation, currency, trade unions, privatization, rent restriction or
unemployment among others.
A third way in which Atlas fostered the inscription of individual think
tanks into the neoliberal ‘thought collective’ was through its active involve-
ment in the local organization of meetings and workshops. Atlas helped
finance and organize local meetings and events, even securing in a number
of cases the participation of core actors. For example, Antony Fisher con-
vinced both Hayek and Friedman to come to France and give their support
to Pascal Salin and his liberal colleagues, a few months before the creation
of the Institut Economique de Paris (IEP) in 1982, and a few months
after the election in France of a Socialist president, François Mitterrand
(Brookes 2014, p. 15ff). In the early 1980s, Hayek and/or Friedman visited
more or less all the countries where Fisher was busy helping with the
­development of a think tank: Iceland, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Australia,
France, Italy, Spain (Ebenstein 2003; 2007). In some cases, Fisher was there
first and mobilized the help of Hayek or Friedman. In other cases, Hayek
created the contact with Fisher when he felt that there was an interesting
opportunity; this was the case for example in Peru with Hernando de Soto
(Mitchell 2009). In the quite different local contexts they explored in that
early period, Fisher and the Atlas team hence played the very important
role of mediators. By bringing along with them the big names of the
­neoliberal ‘thought collective’, who by then were Nobel Prize winners, and
mobilizing them around local events, they imbued local think tanks and
their leaders with legitimacy and visibility. In the process, they ­buttressed
weak and fragile initiatives.

ATLAS OR THE ‘MOTHER ORGANIZATION’ –

STUMBLING INTO THE NURTURING ROLE

As a result of these efforts, the membership base of Atlas increased rapidly.

In 1981, when he was launching Atlas, Fisher had claimed:

There are ten operating institutes using similar methods, fourteen more trying
to get started, and at least sixteen other places where help would be effective.
That would be a total of some forty institutes in thirty countries. (As quoted in
Chafuen 2011)

By 1985, Fisher could already identify close to 30 think tanks across the
world that were connected to Atlas (Fisher 1985). In the spring of 1988,
a few months before Fisher died, Atlas was ‘in touch with over forty

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 36 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­37

institutes in twenty plus countries’ – not too far from what Fisher had
anticipated eight years before (Atlas 1988).
The original project of Antony Fisher, with the creation of Atlas,
had been to foster and facilitate the development, around the world, of
­neoliberal think tanks modeled after the Institute for Economic Affairs
(Fisher 1985; Friedman 2002). As this started to happen, in the early 1980s,
Atlas ‘bumped’, as it were, into another necessary and c­omplementary
role. Atlas became a central hub for a transnational network in the making.
Setting up think tanks was not enough; their founders also needed to
create the conditions for them to ‘sing in unison’. The Atlas team was
rapidly convinced that ‘in order to influence public opinion and ultimately
public policy’ across different countries, you needed ‘choruses and not
(multiple) solos’ (Antony Fisher Speech May 1980, quoted in Chafuen
2013). Atlas, it turned out, would have to structure and nurture the emerg-
ing transnational community of neoliberal second-hand dealers in ideas
(Djelic and Quack 2010).
In fact, this would become the principal role for Atlas starting in the
1990s. Those developments are beyond the scope of this chapter, but we
identify here some of the early activities that Atlas launched in that direc-
tion in the early 1980s. The very structure of Atlas was, in reality, already
a step in that direction. Sitting on the first board of Atlas, in July 1981,
were leaders of some of the older Institutes: Ralph Harris (IEA), Patrick
Boyle (Fraser), Charles Brunie (Manhattan) and Jim North (PRI). From
the start, it seemed, Atlas was thought of as a ‘common home’. Soon,
Fisher launched the yearly Atlas International Workshops. The first one,
in September 1983, took place in Vancouver, Canada, and was organized
jointly with the Fraser Institute. Then followed Cambridge (UK), Sydney
(Australia), Saint Vincent (Italy) and Indianapolis (US). In each case,
the organization of the workshop was a joint effort between Atlas and
the local Institute(s) inscribed in the Atlas constellation. And the Atlas
meetings were systematically organized in conjunction with the meeting,
that same year, of the Mont Pèlerin Society. The Atlas Workshops took
place on the weekend before the start of the Mont Pèlerin Society meeting,
which always began on a Sunday (Liberaal Archief 2005).
These international workshops were relatively small at the beginning and
the main objective was to bring members of the emerging transnational
community together, physically, at least once a year. The first workshop
for which we have concrete information is the fifth Atlas Workshop, which
took place in September 1986 in Indianapolis, with close to 100 par-
ticipants (Atlas 1988). Three different groups of speakers presented. First,
there were representatives of the ‘old institutes’: Harris (IEA), Michael
Walker (Fraser), William Hammett (Manhattan), William Mellor (PRI),

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 37 28/09/2017 11:44

 38 Power, policy and profit

Alejandro Chafuen and Antony Fisher (Atlas). Second, was a group of

representatives from the younger ‘child Institutes’ of Atlas: Greg Lindsay
(CIS), John Goodman (NCPA), Hernando de Soto (ILD), Antonio
Martino (CREA). Finally, there were a few invited participants; for
example a secretary of state from the Thatcher government, an a­ cademic
from Washington University, a retired manager and board member
of the Heritage Foundation (who later contributed funding to Atlas)
and a ­journalist from the Wall Street Journal (Atlas Workshop 1987).
Interestingly, the program and application form for the Atlas Workshop
clearly indicated that attending the workshop did not imply an automatic
invitation to the Mont Pèlerin meeting (ibid.). Each year, the neoliberal
constellation physically came together, but the way in which it did under-
scored the hierarchy and partial separation between the core and the layer
of second-hand dealers in ideas. Still, the proximity of the two events, in
time and space, was probably a good motivating mechanism for the young
up-and-coming think tank leaders, who could thus hope to be invited, one
day, to the mysterious meetings of the holy core.

CONCLUSION

According to Hayek, an intellectual revolution could only happen if the

framing work of a core of utopian thinkers was relayed through time
by increasing numbers of intellectual ‘foot soldiers’ (Hayek 1949). This
layer of ‘secondhand dealers in ideas’ was essential to the architecture of
influence that Hayek was thinking about, in the mid-1940s, to revive the
(economic) liberal project. It would translate and disseminate the pro-
grammatic agenda of the core. The work of this second layer was about
institution-building with two main objectives: to influence cognitive maps
and ‘public opinion’ in many different local contexts and to impact, in
time, political programs in different places, to generate the new ‘governing
force of politics’ (Hayek 1949, p. 417).
When Antony Fisher created the Institute for Economic Affairs in 1955,
he had in mind this programmatic structure, which he had discussed with
Hayek himself. In all likelihood, however, he did not envision that this early
initiative would come to have such a consequential impact. The path was
clearly not an easy one and in the first period of this story, many accidental
developments hindered or facilitated the proximate diffusion of a new type
of organization – the neoliberal think tank. When Fisher created Atlas in
1981 it was built on slightly more solid ground. Atlas could build upon
the success of the IEA and it was born in a much more favorable political
context following the political triumph of Margaret Thatcher in Britain

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 38 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­39

and of Ronald Reagan in the US. The objective thus shifted to taking
the next steps, accelerating the process of diffusion and the ­expansion
of ­neoliberal think tanks in many different parts of the world. Milton
Friedman nicely summarized those different stages:

If Antony had done no more in the think-tank world (than creating the IEA),
it would have been enough to put all believers in freedom in his debt. But after
a digression to breeding green turtles, scientifically successful but commercially
disastrous, he returned to breeding think tanks, at first on a retail basis, and
then, with the establishment of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, on a
wholesale basis. (Friedman 2002)

When Fisher died in 1988, he had created a new organizational form – the
neoliberal think tank. He had significantly contributed to both the design
of that organizational form and to its diffusion and progressive institution-
alization across a great variety of contexts. The neoliberal think tank, as
a powerful ‘secondhand dealer in ideas’, was contributing considerably to
the progressive emergence across a number of countries of a new institu-
tional field – the field of neoliberal influence building. In the last years of
his life, Fisher saw his vision come to fruition:

Numerous press clippings report how the institutes in the Atlas network are
redefining the boundaries of ‘politically impossible’ policies worldwide . . .
‘This illustrates how institutes dedicated to the principles of the free market
and private property are making a difference in the world,’ commented Atlas
Chairman Antony Fisher. (Atlas 1988)

By then, there were close to 40 neoliberal think tanks in more than 20

countries. According to DiMaggio, ‘new institutions arise when organized
actors with sufficient resources see in them an opportunity to realize inter-
ests that they value highly’ (DiMaggio 1988, p. 14). DiMaggio calls those
organized actors ‘institutional entrepreneurs’. In that sense, Antony Fisher
was indeed an ‘institutional entrepreneur’. What this story shows, however,
is that Fisher could not have accomplished what he did alone. The process
described was a complex one, with ups and downs, unintended develop-
ments, the involvement of a multiplicity of other actors and resources
and clearly different stages with evolving logics. The type of ‘institutional
entrepreneurship’ at work here was not the heroic type, even though Fisher
has unsurprisingly been hailed as a hero in the community he did so much
to spearhead. I have shown instead that the process of institutional emer-
gence in that context resulted ‘from spatially dispersed, heterogeneous
activities’ (Lounsbury and Crumley 2007) and that it reflected complex
collective interplays, ambiguous and unintended developments, as well as
significant temporal sequencing (Djelic 2010).

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 39 28/09/2017 11:44

 40 Power, policy and profit

As it turns out, the story told here was only the beginning. Since 1988,
the network of influence spanned and nurtured by Atlas has expanded
in a striking way. Today Atlas boasts a membership of more than 400
think tanks in more than 70 nations across the world (Atlas 2013). As the
numbers increased, the role of keeping the network together and of struc-
turing and nurturing a transnational community of neoliberal think tanks
has become both more important and more challenging for Atlas (Djelic
and Quack 2010). How Atlas has managed to deal with that challenge since
the late 1980s is another interesting story. It is, however, beyond the scope
of this chapter.

REFERENCES

Aligica, P.D. and A. Evans (2009), The Neoliberal Revolution in Eastern Europe,
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Bakan, J. (2004), The Corporation, London, UK: Robinson Publishing.
Bebchuk, L. and R. Jackson (2013), ‘Shining light on corporate political spending’,
Georgetown Law Journal, 101, 923–67.
Borisov, A., E. Goldman and N. Gupta (2014), ‘The corporate value of (corrupt)
lobbying, working paper’, at European Corporate Governance Institute http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443104. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Brookes, K. (2014), ‘Le rôle des clubs et des réseaux d’intellectuels libéraux dans la
diffusion du néolibéralisme en France, Sciences Po Grenoble, Working Paper 16’,
at http://www.sciencespo-grenoble.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SPGWP16.pdf.
Accessed 3 May 2017.
Burgin, A. (2012), The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Great
Depression, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, J. and O. Pedersen (eds) (2001), The Rise of Neoliberalism and
Institutional Analysis, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2006), Failed States, New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Cockett, R. (1995), Thinking the Unthinkable, London: Fontana Press.
DiMaggio, P. (1988), ‘Interest and agency in institutional theory’, in L. Zucker (ed.),
Institutional Patterns and Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 3–32.
Djelic, M.L. (2006), ‘Marketization: From intellectual agenda to global policy
making’, in M.L. Djelic and K. Sahlin-Andersson (eds), Transnational Governance,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–73.
Djelic, M.L. (2010), ‘Institutional perspectives: Working towards coherence
or irreconcilable diversity?’, in G.J. Morgan, J.L. Campbell, C.C. Crouch,
O.K. Pedersen and R. Whitley (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative
Institutional Analysis, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–40.
Djelic, M.L. (2011), ‘From the rule of law to the law of rules’, International Studies
of Management and Organization, 41(1), 35–61.
Djelic, M.L. and S. Quack (eds) (2010), Transnational Communities, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ebenstein, A. (2003), Friedrich Hayek: A Biography, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 40 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­41

Ebenstein, A. (2007), Milton Friedman: A Biography, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.
Foucault, M. [1978] (2004), Naissance de la Biopolitique, Paris: Seuil.
Friedman, M. (1970), ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its
profits’, The New York Times, 13 September 1970.
Frost, G. (2002), Anthony Fisher: Champion of Liberty, London: Profile Books.
Goldthwaite, R. (1987) ‘The Medici Bank and the world of Florentine capitalism’,
Past & Present, 114, 3–31.
Harvey, D. (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Hayek, F. (1949), ‘The intellectuals and socialism’, University of Chicago Law
Review, Spring, 417–33.
Igan, D., P. Mishra and T. Tressel (2009), ‘A fistful of dollars: Lobbying and the
financial crisis, IMF working paper’, at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/
wp/2009/wp09287.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Jackson, B. (2012), ‘The think tank archipelago: Thatcherism and neoliberalism’,
in B. Jackson and R. Saunders (eds), Making Thatcher’s Britain, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–61.
Kaiser, R. (1999) ‘Money, family name shaped Scaife, Washington Post, May 3’,
at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaife​
main050399.htm. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Langley, A. (1999), ‘Strategies for theorizing from process data’, Academy of
Management Review, 24, 691–710.
Lounsbury, M. and E. Crumley (2007), ‘New practice creation: An institutional
perspective on innovation’, Organization Studies 28(7), 993–1012.
Martin, C. and D. Swank (2012), The Political Construction of Business Interests,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Medvetz, T. (2012), Think Tanks in America, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Mills, C.W. (1956), The Power Elite, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mirowski, P. and D. Plehwe (eds) (2009), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Mitchell, T. (2009), ‘How neoliberalism makes its world: The urban property
rights project in Peru’, in P. Mirowski and D. Plehwe (eds), The Road from Mont
Pèlerin, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 386–416.
Muller, C. (1996) ‘The Institute of Economic Affairs: Undermining the post-war
consensus’, Contemporary British History, 10(1), 88–110.
Neubauer, R. (2012), ‘Dialogue, monologue or something in between? Neoliberal
think tanks in the Americas’, International Journal of Communications, 6,
2173–98.
Pearson, M. (1997), China’s New Business Elite, Oakland, CA: University of
California Press.
Perrow, C. (1991) ‘A society of organizations’, Theory & Society, 20, 725–62.
Scherer, A.G. and G. Palazzo (2007), ‘Toward a political conception of corporate
social responsibility’, Academy of Management Review, 32, 1096–120.
Singer, P. (2008), Corporate Warriors, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Smith, M. (2000), American Business and Political Power, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Skocpol, T. (1984), Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 41 28/09/2017 11:44

 42 Power, policy and profit

Van de Ven, A. and H. Sminia (2012), ‘Aligning process questions, perspectives

and explanations’, in M. Schultz, S. Maguire, A. Langley and H. Tsoukas
(eds), Constructing Identity in and around Organizations, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, pp. 306–19.
Witkowski, T. and B. Jones (2006), ‘Qualitative historical research in m
­ arketing’, in
R. Belk (ed.), Qualitative Historical Research Methods in Marketing, Cheltenham,
UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 70–82.
Woll, C. (2008), Firm Interest, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Atlas – History from Within

Blundell, J. (2001), ‘Waging the war of ideas, London: IEA’, at http://www.iea.org.

uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook226pdf.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Blundell, J. (2008), Margaret Thatcher, New York: Algora Publishing.
Blundell, J. (2011), Ladies for Liberty, New York: Algora Publishing.
Chafuen, A. (2011), ‘Atlas Economic Research Foundation early history’, at http://
www.chafuen.com/atlas-economic-research-foundation-early-history. Accessed 3
May 2017.
Chafuen, A. (2013), ‘Fisher quotes’, at http://www.chafuen.com/fisherquotes. Acc­
essed 3 May 2017.
Frost, G. and D. Moller (2008), ‘Antony Fisher, champion of liberty condensed
version, London: IEA’, at http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/antony-
fisher-champion-of-liberty. Accessed 3 May 2017.

Think Tanks and Their Leaders

Edwards, L. (1997), The Power of Ideas: The Heritage Foundation at 25 Years,

Jameson Books.
Fraser (1999), ‘Challenging perceptions: 25 years of influential ideas’, at http://www.
fra​serinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraserca/Content/About_Us/Who_We_Are/25th
_Retrospective.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Fraser (2004), ‘The Fraser Institute at 30: a retrospective’, at http://www.fraserinsti​
tute.org/uploadedFiles/fraserca/Content/About_Us/Who_We_Are/30th_Retrospe​
ctive.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Gissurarson, H. (2013), ‘Reports of capitalism’s demise exaggerated. Speech at the
University of Iceland, February 19’, at http://www.rnh.is/?p=3492. Accessed 3
May 2017.
Lindsay, G. (1996), ‘The CIS at twenty – Greg Lindsay talks to Andrew
Norton, Policy, Winter: 16–21’, at https://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-
magazine/1996-win​ter/1996-12-2-andrew-norton.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Seldon, A. (2005), The IEA, the LSE and the Influence of Ideas, Indianapolis, IN:
Liberty Fund.
Seldon, A. and R. Harris (1977), Not from Benevolence, Kingston, RI: University
of Rhode Island.
Wolfe, T. (2004), ‘The Manhattan Institute at 25’, in Manhattan Institute (ed.),
Turning Intellect into Influence, Auckland, NZ: Reed Press, pp. 29–30.

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 42 28/09/2017 11:44

 Building an architecture for political influence ­43

Websites

ASI (2013), Adam Smith Institute Website, at http://www.adamsmith.org/. Accessed

3 May 2017.
Atlas (2013a), Atlas Network Website, at http://atlasnetwork.org/. Accessed 3 May
2017.
Atlas (2013b), Frequently Asked Questions, Atlas Economic Research Foundation,
at http://atlasnetwork.org/blog/2010/11/frequently-asked-questions-2/#ref9. Acc­
essed 3 May 2017.
DeSmogBlog (2010), Mont Pèlerin Directory, at http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/
beta.desmogblog.com/files/Mont%20Pelerin%20Society%20Directory%202010.
pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Fraser (2013), Fraser Institute Website, at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/. Accessed
3 May 2017.
HF (2013), Heritage Foundation Website, at http://www.heritage.org/. Accessed 3
May 2017.
MI (2013), Manhattan Institute Website, at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/.
Accessed 3 May 2017.
NCPA (2013), National Center for Policy Analysis – History, at http://www.ncpa.
org/about/national-center-for-policy-analysis-history. Accessed 3 May 2017.
PRI (2013) Pacific Research Institute, at http://www.pacificresearch.org/about/pris-
history/ Accessed 3 May 2017.
RNH (2013), Icelandic Research Center for Innovation and Economic Growth, at
http://www.rnh.is/?page_id=346 Accessed 3 May 2017.

Personal Pages and Biographical Information

Boyle, P. (2013) at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/programs.aspx?pageid=64424510

36&terms=Patrick+Boyle. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Brunie, C. (2013), at http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&​
eid=BrunChar. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Butler, E. (2013), at http://eamonnbutler.com/about/. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Butler, S. (2013), LinkedIn Profile.
Persico, J. (1991), The Lives and Secrets of William Casey, Penguin Books.
Casey, B. (2013), at http://billcasey.ca/. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Feulner, E. (2013), at http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/f/edwin-feulner. Accessed
3 May 2017.
Harris, R. (2000), ‘Interview of Ralph Harris by PBS – Commanding Heights’, at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_ralphharris.
html#8. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Mellor, W. (2013), at http://www.ij.org/wmellor-2. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Murray, C. (2013), at http://www.aei.org/scholar/charles-murray/. Accessed 3 May
2017.
Pipes, S. (2013), LinkedIn Profile.
Pirie, M. (2013), at http://eamonnbutler.com/about/. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Walker, M. (2013), at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/author.aspx?id=15364&​tx​ID=​
3266. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Wolf, M. (2006), ‘Obituary Lord Harris of High Cross, Financial Times, October
19’, at http://mobi.fcpp.org/publication.php/1557. Accessed 3 May 2017.

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 43 28/09/2017 11:44

 44 Power, policy and profit

Archives and Interviews

Atlas (1987), Atlas Economic Research Foundation – Recent Highlights, May, Issue
6, at http://atlasnetwork.org/blog/2010/11/highlights-archives/. Accessed 3 May
2017.
Atlas (1988), Atlas Economic Research Foundation – Highlights, Spring, at
http://atlasnetwork.org/blog/2010/11/highlights-archives/. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Atlas Workshop (1987), Atlas – Indianapolis Seminar, 5–6 September: at https://
docs.google.com/a/essec.edu/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Y2hhZnVlbi5jb218d
3d3fGd4OjU3NTRkZjRiNGRiMmQ1YzM. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Fisher, A. (1981), ‘Letter to a businessman in Jamaica’, reprinted in A. Chafuen,
Fisher Quotes, at http://www.chafuen.com/fisherquotes. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Fisher, A. (1983), ‘Pourquoi l’IEA? Conférence prononcée à l’Institut Economique
de Paris le 29 septembre 1982’, Liberté économique et progrès social, n° 46–47,
Octobre.
Fisher, A. (1985) ‘Atlas presentation and promotion video’, at: http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=nW8ukG8WdQg. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Hayek, F. (1980), ‘Letter to Antony Fisher. January 1’, at http://www.margaretthatcher.
org/document/117149. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Liberaal Archief (2005), Inventory of the General Meeting Files Mont Pèlerin
Society (1947–98), at www.liberaalarchief.be. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Taylor, J. (2000), ‘An interview with Milton Friedman, Conducted on May 2 in
San Francisco’, at http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Onlinepaperscombined​by​
year/2001/An_Interview_with_Milton_Friedman.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Thatcher, M. (1979), ‘Note to Ralph Harris, May 18’, at http://www.marga​
retthatcher.org/document/117145. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Thatcher, M. (1980), ‘Letter to Antony Fisher. February 20’, at http://www.marga​
retthatcher.org/document/117154. Accessed 3 May 2017.
Thatcher, M. (1993), ‘The new world order, speech at the Fraser Institute,
November 8’, at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108325. Accessed
3 May 2017.
Van Offelen, J. (2005), ‘Preface by a former Belgian minister, member of the Mont
Pèlerin Society to the inventory of the general meetings files’, Ghent: Liberaal
Archiev, at www.liberaalarchief.be. Accessed 3 May 2017.

Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic - 9781784711214

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/14/2020 08:54:31PM
via free access

GARSTEN_9781784711207_t.indd 44 28/09/2017 11:44